I answered my own question from my previous blog entry "Keeping Obama in check?" I did it by being a good little boy and doing my weekly readings. In that entry I asked if the press is supposed to be expected to keep politicians in check, not simply objectively relay information to the public. The answer is "Yes."
Cool!
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
What could cause the death of the internet?
We're always talking about how the internet could destroy broadcast television as we know it. We talk even more about how newspapers will inevitably die because everyone gets their news from the internet. We then discuss how devastating this will be to a great number of people because people will lose jobs. Those who are news reporters can move on to become bloggers, but those that operate the presses will be out of work.
When this topic comes up in class discussions or academic forums, sometimes one will put forth the fact that the internet is just another step in the evolution of media and it's threats and benefits to society are the same type of threats and benefits that society have needed to address before.
When phonograph recording was invented, people thought that no one would buy sheet music or go to live music performances anymore, therefore the music industry as it existed would die.
When television was invented, the radio industry and film industry feared that no one would listen to the radio and no one would go to the "pictures" anymore.
In all of these cases, the industries that were in danger from these media innovations suffered drawbacks, but they survived in the end.
I wonder this, "What is going to come in the future that will put the internet in danger?" I'm gonna go to my dorky roots (I used to be a huge Sci-Fi nerd) to address this. Arthur C. Clarke, the author of 2001: A Space Odyssey, wrote several sequels to that book (they definitely are not as well known as 2001, nor are they as good). In the final book of this series, 3001: The Final Odyssey, mankind all shaved their heads and wore metal helmets that allowed them to download and upload information directly to and from their brains. I could see that technology as a threat to the internet as we know it, but how long until that comes about?
I don't want it to happen in my lifetime, personally. I like hair. A lot.
Also, consider this: What if somehow the internet existed before Television or Radio or even newspapers? It could be possible that those inventions could have threatened the popularity of the internet back then if history were to work that way.
If you're getting the idea that I am teasing my class presentation tonight, you are correct... :)
When this topic comes up in class discussions or academic forums, sometimes one will put forth the fact that the internet is just another step in the evolution of media and it's threats and benefits to society are the same type of threats and benefits that society have needed to address before.
When phonograph recording was invented, people thought that no one would buy sheet music or go to live music performances anymore, therefore the music industry as it existed would die.
When television was invented, the radio industry and film industry feared that no one would listen to the radio and no one would go to the "pictures" anymore.
In all of these cases, the industries that were in danger from these media innovations suffered drawbacks, but they survived in the end.
I wonder this, "What is going to come in the future that will put the internet in danger?" I'm gonna go to my dorky roots (I used to be a huge Sci-Fi nerd) to address this. Arthur C. Clarke, the author of 2001: A Space Odyssey, wrote several sequels to that book (they definitely are not as well known as 2001, nor are they as good). In the final book of this series, 3001: The Final Odyssey, mankind all shaved their heads and wore metal helmets that allowed them to download and upload information directly to and from their brains. I could see that technology as a threat to the internet as we know it, but how long until that comes about?
I don't want it to happen in my lifetime, personally. I like hair. A lot.
Also, consider this: What if somehow the internet existed before Television or Radio or even newspapers? It could be possible that those inventions could have threatened the popularity of the internet back then if history were to work that way.
If you're getting the idea that I am teasing my class presentation tonight, you are correct... :)
DID you SAY those THINGS???!!!!
None of our blogs have talked about this so I'm gonna jump on it.
Did anyone see this? I don't watch The View but I heard the bites on The Adam Carolla Show during Teresa Strasser's news headlines.
Jump to 2:12 and see how many times Walters asks Illinois Governer Rod Blagojevich, "Did you say those things?" Also check out how many times Blago says, "out of context."
One of those montages I talked about last week would certainly be called for if this were to show up on The Daily Show (maybe it did, not sure).
Liz Cox Barret wrote an interesting blog for the Columbia Journalism Review on how Barbara Walters could have better handled this situation...
----------------------------------------------
Those words have been “taken out of context” seems to be Gov. Blagojevich’s go-to reply when asked by reporters about some of the things he’s said or stands accused of saying.
For example, on The View moments ago:
BARBARA WALTERS: You’ve compared yourself to Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King, Mahatma Gandhi. Are you really seeing yourself as one of great martyrs of history?
BLAGOJEVICH: No. In fact, that was taken out of context.
When I mentioned Mandela, Gandhi and Dr. King it was in response to a question about how I felt after I was arrested and what my thoughts were. And I talked about, I thought first of my two daughters. I thought of my wife. And then I thought about some historic figures who have experienced similar experiences. Under no circumstances am I comparing myself to Dr. King or Mahatma Gahndhi or Nelson Mandela. I must say all three were great men who have been an inspiration to me and I think about men like that always but certainly during a difficult time like I’m facing now.
The governor provides the missing “context:” he was not comparing himself to these men, just comparing their “similar experiences.”
Another “out of context” moment:
WALTERS: Let’s get to the big question…You’ve denied trying to sell Pres. Obama’s senate seat but you’ve been wiretapped saying, “I’ve got this thing. It’s golden. I’m just not giving it up for nothing” a lot of expletives in the way…If that’s not selling a senate seat, what is?
BLAGOJEVICH: You have to understand these were private conversations taking place over a long period of time…These are snippets of conversation taken out of context…
WALTERS: But did you say these things?
BLAGOJEVICH: Well I think…. if you hear the whole story…under no circumstance was I trying to sell a senate seat…
WALTERS: Let me ask this one question. Did you say —in context, out of context, it’s on a wire tape — did you say those things… Here is your chance. No lawyers. You’re talking to the public. Please answer that part of it. Otherwise why are you wasting time on these programs?
BLAGOJEVICH: Again…
WALTERS: Did you say those things?
BLAGOJEVICH: Whatever the tapes are, they’re going to come out and they’ll speak for themselves. The tapes will show the whole story. They will take all the conversations in the proper context….
WALTERS: I guess what I’m trying to say without pushing you again is that you do not deny, although those sentences may be in context with others, you have not now denied that somewhere along the line you said those things. If that’s the case, I’ll move on.
BLAGOJEVICH: I can’t confirm or deny anything when I haven’t had a chance to hear the tapes…
What might be a better way to handle Blago’s “out of context” comeback (if, that is, you aren’t too busy fixating on getting him to admit to saying things that there are tapes of him, allegedly, saying)? How about, simply, the way ABC News’s Diane Sawyer did on Good Morning America earlier:
BLAGOJEVICH: …again, they took snippets of conversations completely out of context. Didn’t provide all the tapes that tell the whole story and when the whole story comes out you’ll see that the effort was to work to have a senator who can best represent Illinois and one that can help us create jobs and provide health care..
SAWYER: Help me with context. Help me with the context that explains I’ve got this thing, it’s bleeping golden. I’m just not giving it up for bleeping nothing..
BLAGOJEVICH: Again, I can’t go into the details of that case and I wish they would allow me at this impeachment trial to be able to bring the evidence to show exactly what those conversations were….
Isn’t that — what’s “the context” that could explain those “out-of-context” remarks? — the obvious follow-up question here? (Not that Blagojevich answered Sawyer. But at least she asked.)
--------------
I personally prefer Walters' reactions. They were hilarious and brightened my day, and it proved to me that you can find awesome tidbits about our media from listening to the Adam Carolla Show. Thank you Sebastian Grubaugh for turning me on to it because it's helping me with my blogging homework. :)
BTW - It's on 97.1 Free FM in the mornings, the same station that has Tom Lichus (much to Teresa Strasser's dismay).
Did anyone see this? I don't watch The View but I heard the bites on The Adam Carolla Show during Teresa Strasser's news headlines.
Jump to 2:12 and see how many times Walters asks Illinois Governer Rod Blagojevich, "Did you say those things?" Also check out how many times Blago says, "out of context."
One of those montages I talked about last week would certainly be called for if this were to show up on The Daily Show (maybe it did, not sure).
Liz Cox Barret wrote an interesting blog for the Columbia Journalism Review on how Barbara Walters could have better handled this situation...
----------------------------------------------
Those words have been “taken out of context” seems to be Gov. Blagojevich’s go-to reply when asked by reporters about some of the things he’s said or stands accused of saying.
For example, on The View moments ago:
BARBARA WALTERS: You’ve compared yourself to Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King, Mahatma Gandhi. Are you really seeing yourself as one of great martyrs of history?
BLAGOJEVICH: No. In fact, that was taken out of context.
When I mentioned Mandela, Gandhi and Dr. King it was in response to a question about how I felt after I was arrested and what my thoughts were. And I talked about, I thought first of my two daughters. I thought of my wife. And then I thought about some historic figures who have experienced similar experiences. Under no circumstances am I comparing myself to Dr. King or Mahatma Gahndhi or Nelson Mandela. I must say all three were great men who have been an inspiration to me and I think about men like that always but certainly during a difficult time like I’m facing now.
The governor provides the missing “context:” he was not comparing himself to these men, just comparing their “similar experiences.”
Another “out of context” moment:
WALTERS: Let’s get to the big question…You’ve denied trying to sell Pres. Obama’s senate seat but you’ve been wiretapped saying, “I’ve got this thing. It’s golden. I’m just not giving it up for nothing” a lot of expletives in the way…If that’s not selling a senate seat, what is?
BLAGOJEVICH: You have to understand these were private conversations taking place over a long period of time…These are snippets of conversation taken out of context…
WALTERS: But did you say these things?
BLAGOJEVICH: Well I think…. if you hear the whole story…under no circumstance was I trying to sell a senate seat…
WALTERS: Let me ask this one question. Did you say —in context, out of context, it’s on a wire tape — did you say those things… Here is your chance. No lawyers. You’re talking to the public. Please answer that part of it. Otherwise why are you wasting time on these programs?
BLAGOJEVICH: Again…
WALTERS: Did you say those things?
BLAGOJEVICH: Whatever the tapes are, they’re going to come out and they’ll speak for themselves. The tapes will show the whole story. They will take all the conversations in the proper context….
WALTERS: I guess what I’m trying to say without pushing you again is that you do not deny, although those sentences may be in context with others, you have not now denied that somewhere along the line you said those things. If that’s the case, I’ll move on.
BLAGOJEVICH: I can’t confirm or deny anything when I haven’t had a chance to hear the tapes…
What might be a better way to handle Blago’s “out of context” comeback (if, that is, you aren’t too busy fixating on getting him to admit to saying things that there are tapes of him, allegedly, saying)? How about, simply, the way ABC News’s Diane Sawyer did on Good Morning America earlier:
BLAGOJEVICH: …again, they took snippets of conversations completely out of context. Didn’t provide all the tapes that tell the whole story and when the whole story comes out you’ll see that the effort was to work to have a senator who can best represent Illinois and one that can help us create jobs and provide health care..
SAWYER: Help me with context. Help me with the context that explains I’ve got this thing, it’s bleeping golden. I’m just not giving it up for bleeping nothing..
BLAGOJEVICH: Again, I can’t go into the details of that case and I wish they would allow me at this impeachment trial to be able to bring the evidence to show exactly what those conversations were….
Isn’t that — what’s “the context” that could explain those “out-of-context” remarks? — the obvious follow-up question here? (Not that Blagojevich answered Sawyer. But at least she asked.)
--------------
I personally prefer Walters' reactions. They were hilarious and brightened my day, and it proved to me that you can find awesome tidbits about our media from listening to the Adam Carolla Show. Thank you Sebastian Grubaugh for turning me on to it because it's helping me with my blogging homework. :)
BTW - It's on 97.1 Free FM in the mornings, the same station that has Tom Lichus (much to Teresa Strasser's dismay).
Friday, January 23, 2009
Dude!!!
Ever seen the Terminator movies? I am convinced that Facebook is SKYNET and it will take over the world...
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.53d2fb293d708cf32571d6ab8f4b3208.211&show_article=1
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.53d2fb293d708cf32571d6ab8f4b3208.211&show_article=1
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Montages in news montages in news montages in news montages in news montages in news
This is a prominent blending of fantasy and reality today. Or, actually it's a blending of fake news and serious reporting.
Here's a tibit from The Colbert Report from last night, celebrating it's 500th show and the last day of George W. Bush's presidency. I want to draw your attention to the section with the montage of Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez saying the word "recall" (it's at about 2:20)....
The same episode used a similar montage technique showing the "boiling frogs" motif in political coverage:
Actually, this is a VERY common visual humor technique used on The Daily Show and The Colbert Report. I do not know if this originated on The Daily Show, but it is where I first noticed it years ago. It's an easy way for Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert to make politicians and talking heads look like goons: simply show a montage of them saying the same word or phrase on multiple occasions and expose the ridiculous repetitiveness of their rhetoric (say that three times fast!). It also works to establish rediculousness in a word or phrase motif ITSELF by showing a montage of people saying it.
Now try THIS on for size...
Here's a package from a year ago by CNN's Jeanie Moos that opens with the SAME montage technique. Remember, this is CNN, NOT the Daily Show or Colbert Report...
As much as I love to watch these montages of sound bites because they are funny, I cannot help but consider that it's not a very fair for a credible news outlet like CNN to use. Of course someone is going to look like a goon if you count how many times they say a particular word or cliched phrase (I do it all the time when I'm listening to my instructors in class). You can make ANYONE look like an idiot if you string a bunch of clips of anytime someone said the word "house" or "car" or even the word "the." One of the ways Jessica Simpson was portrayed as a ditz in her old reality show "Newleyweds" was a montage of all her saying the word "cute" as she went shopping (I'm sure you're disappointed that I don't have video to back that up). Let me just say that my girlfriend says "cute" a lot as she shops for clothes and I don't consider her a ditz.
To reiterate my excitement of the Lost season premiere, look how this montage makes Lost look like a goon...
Here's a tibit from The Colbert Report from last night, celebrating it's 500th show and the last day of George W. Bush's presidency. I want to draw your attention to the section with the montage of Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez saying the word "recall" (it's at about 2:20)....
The same episode used a similar montage technique showing the "boiling frogs" motif in political coverage:
Actually, this is a VERY common visual humor technique used on The Daily Show and The Colbert Report. I do not know if this originated on The Daily Show, but it is where I first noticed it years ago. It's an easy way for Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert to make politicians and talking heads look like goons: simply show a montage of them saying the same word or phrase on multiple occasions and expose the ridiculous repetitiveness of their rhetoric (say that three times fast!). It also works to establish rediculousness in a word or phrase motif ITSELF by showing a montage of people saying it.
Now try THIS on for size...
Here's a package from a year ago by CNN's Jeanie Moos that opens with the SAME montage technique. Remember, this is CNN, NOT the Daily Show or Colbert Report...
As much as I love to watch these montages of sound bites because they are funny, I cannot help but consider that it's not a very fair for a credible news outlet like CNN to use. Of course someone is going to look like a goon if you count how many times they say a particular word or cliched phrase (I do it all the time when I'm listening to my instructors in class). You can make ANYONE look like an idiot if you string a bunch of clips of anytime someone said the word "house" or "car" or even the word "the." One of the ways Jessica Simpson was portrayed as a ditz in her old reality show "Newleyweds" was a montage of all her saying the word "cute" as she went shopping (I'm sure you're disappointed that I don't have video to back that up). Let me just say that my girlfriend says "cute" a lot as she shops for clothes and I don't consider her a ditz.
To reiterate my excitement of the Lost season premiere, look how this montage makes Lost look like a goon...
Keeping Obama "In Check?"
Gonna jump on the bandwagon and post a blog about the inauguration coverage. I actually haven't seen any evidence that this topic is the bandwagon of our class, but I'm sure it is. It definitely is the bandwagon of the media today (even Entertainment Tonight and KIIS-FM's JoJo on the Radio are constantly talking about it). Here's one for ya (if you haven't already thought of this...)
Romenesko featured a blog today showing that the LAT "pledge[s] to watch Obama, to hold him to his work, and to report back." Here's the blurb so you don't have to dig for it:
Barack Obama's victory "was welcome news to us, as it was for many millions of Americans," says the LAT editorial board. "But recent history supplies a sobering lesson in what happens when support for a president dulls the skepticism needed to ensure public accountability." || Jay Rosen: "What we should care about is not how many questions the press gets to ask at White House news conferences -- a hapless metric -- but how open to questions the Obama White House is in all the available ways."
I heard similar comments on CNN as the inauguration post-mortem coverage was playing in the background of my office in the Annenberg Digital Lab. I tried to find a clip on YouTube for y'all but I couldn't. Basically they said something like, "We'll definitely be keeping Obama IN CHECK during these next four years now that this inauguration is complete."
As I admitted in class last week, I don't know as much about the history of Journalism as others in our class, so I don't know if this is a dumb question. But, I wonder if the function of the press/media was always to keep our president "in check." Isn't the press simply supposed to keep the public informed and keep an air of objectivity? Seems to me that establishing yourself as an identity that scrutinizes for the purpose of a result does not count as objectivity.
That being said, I will be honest as I say this: I hope it doesn't make me a bad person, but I'm over the inauguration. It's time for me to look forward to the event that I was really most excited about... the season premiere of LOST tomorrow night! YEAH!!! Hopefully we'll be let out of class early so I can watch it at 9pm! :)
Cheers!
Romenesko featured a blog today showing that the LAT "pledge[s] to watch Obama, to hold him to his work, and to report back." Here's the blurb so you don't have to dig for it:
Barack Obama's victory "was welcome news to us, as it was for many millions of Americans," says the LAT editorial board. "But recent history supplies a sobering lesson in what happens when support for a president dulls the skepticism needed to ensure public accountability." || Jay Rosen: "What we should care about is not how many questions the press gets to ask at White House news conferences -- a hapless metric -- but how open to questions the Obama White House is in all the available ways."
I heard similar comments on CNN as the inauguration post-mortem coverage was playing in the background of my office in the Annenberg Digital Lab. I tried to find a clip on YouTube for y'all but I couldn't. Basically they said something like, "We'll definitely be keeping Obama IN CHECK during these next four years now that this inauguration is complete."
As I admitted in class last week, I don't know as much about the history of Journalism as others in our class, so I don't know if this is a dumb question. But, I wonder if the function of the press/media was always to keep our president "in check." Isn't the press simply supposed to keep the public informed and keep an air of objectivity? Seems to me that establishing yourself as an identity that scrutinizes for the purpose of a result does not count as objectivity.
That being said, I will be honest as I say this: I hope it doesn't make me a bad person, but I'm over the inauguration. It's time for me to look forward to the event that I was really most excited about... the season premiere of LOST tomorrow night! YEAH!!! Hopefully we'll be let out of class early so I can watch it at 9pm! :)
Cheers!
Friday, January 16, 2009
Why the Roosters?
If anyone is wondering why there is a slideshow of Roosters on the bottom of my blog... I actually have no idea. I think I slapped it in there when I was first testing out blogger for a bunch of students about a year ago. The rooster apparently is my zodiac birth year so maybe that has something to do with it (I'm not big on astrology).
Tips for My Classmates
If any of my fellow COMM 599 flunkies want a tip for how to manage all the blogging and following we need to in class, you guys should use the an iGoogle homepage (I use the Google Apps at USC one that we were provided by the University). Use Google Reader to subscribe to the RSS feeds of all the sites that we need to keep tabs on. Then, you can embed the Google Reader stuff into your iGoogle homepage amongst any CNN, Fox News, or other gadgets that you've put on your iGoogle homepage. You can even add blogger gadgets to it so you can post directly to your blogger blog from your homepage.
If anyone's found an even better way than this, I'd love to check it out!
If anyone's found an even better way than this, I'd love to check it out!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)